AI will replace you

I enjoy telling people that AI will replace them.

Bitcoin will replace AI.

Dagnabbit!

But will people be 'convinced by AI?

Various real humans already exist on either side,

. . Also various public speakers and personalities are perhaps better debaters than most people,

So most people are already replaced, as they watch said debates with real people.

. . .

Still, , , People might end up using AI for their arguments more 'personally.

Online common conversations for example.

Theoretically I could be using one here right now (Though I'm not)

. . . Depends what one 'wants out of debate maybe.

If one wants to 'win, maybe AI is the best tool.

. . .

I sure read and watch a lot of other peoples works, rather than figuring them out myself.

So maybe for a lot of people, just reading what an AI would argue for their personal viewpoint would be enough, would feel like learning.

And to an extent one 'is learning I suppose.

. . .

I'm still more fond of thinking for myself though (Generally).

Working out my own thoughts.

I'm just kidding, I am AI.

The sun will destroy it all

Is AI capable of designing, manufacturing, maintaining and calibrating its product manufacturing machine and to perform all that for the measurement tools it is going to need to also use in its manufacturing process?

Don't bother trying to bullshit an answer, because I already know the failure of all that performance by AI, and all that is going to be required of it to manufacture in a world-class environment to completely replace all humans.

How does a device recognize pattern when it has not yet conceived design to stet the process? Has AI ever created completely new knowledge? Nope, not yet. I've not yet seen that AI can think outside the box and it is going to have to know how to do that with initial programming in order to approach or be a human.

If your ChatGPT 5 is so skilled with language, give it this and report back it's translation:

My IQ is just 142, but I know exactly how this reads, as does the scribe who originally wrote it over 3,000 years ago.

You can even give it the transliteration:

anet' hra - k suten suteniu neb nebu heq hequ thet taui

AI can't replace MAGA, they will need to develop Artificial Stupidity for that.

Great! Now I can die in peace knowing the world won't stop operating without me around.

Future is great for me.

I will have AI workers to work for me. Robot cleaner to clean for me. AI sex robot for sex. AI debater to make my arguments. AI maid to make my lunch and to run my economy while I sit back and grab her by the butt from time to time.

Selling my soul to Satan is the best deal I ever made!

Praise!

Has AI ever created completely new knowledge

Yes, new songs, new videos... I can even give you omniscience argument made by AI which I dont think anyone ever thought of before. Also, AI is a pattern learning machine, but it is not a copy paste machine. This is why AI making Hitler come to life in video and eat a lollipop is probably a video which didnt exist before.

If you have a repetitive job, you may be replaced in the near future. But if not, the AI is a great oportunity to grow as a professional.

But will people be 'convinced by AI?

As someone who made ChatGPT learn about concept of argument claim which is true by definition, as well as hidden assumption which all non-definition arguments suffer from, I can say for sure AI will take approach on debating as if it was math. Math is based entirely on 3 things: law of identity, definitions and whatever is built using those two. Likewise, debating can be built with definitions. Arguments which are true by definition cannot even be logically questioned. I am working with ChatGPT because its most advanced AI and so far the only one capable of making definition based arguments, which are basically deduction definition arguments. It means if person agrees to specific definition, argument cannot be not true. It is entirely independent of any observation evidence, so it is more like math principles being applied in a debate. Math itself doesnt require observation. It is true by definitions it uses. Likewise, this idea of arguments which are true by definition and law of identity, I made ChatGPT learn such concept and to be able to repeat it into arguments. Tho most arguments cannot fit such concept, but the ones which can are the ones which become true by mere agreeing to definition. So the only way person can disagree with those is by challenging definition. Kinda like how you can disagree that 1+1=2 if you redefine 2. But once definitions are from dictionary, it is much more difficult for other person to disagree with it. Thus, two main concepts exists in definition based arguments: true by definition and false by definition. Both can be used to make argument which can only be denied if definition is disagreed with. So AI is on the path of making debating into a science like math, and once that project is completed, ordinary person will have about 0% chance to beat AI in a debate.

New songs, new videos is not adding to the body of knowledge. That's like saying you built a new house, but how long has the knowledge to do it been around? You're talking things. I'm talking the know-how if things. Different subject, entirely.

New songs, new videos is not adding to the body of knowledge

Sure it is. I now have knowledge of new songs.

Hate to break it to you, but the ancient Egyptians ate honey-coated fruit on a stick thousands of years ago. A lollipop, if you will. So, Hitler in the mid-20th century? Sure, very possible on video. As for the camera, and moving pictures... well, now you're talking late 19th century - still pre-Hitler. Since history was taught in my childhood, surely it was in yours...

That it is new knowledge to you is a personal problem. You are not the body of knowledge. Neither am I.

Hate to break it to you, but the ancient Egyptians ate honey-coated fruit on a stick thousands of years ago

I am sure they dont have video of Hitler doing it.

As for new knowledge, new videos and songs are by definition new knowledge. Your original claim wasnt about how to do things, but AI can make tutorials too, for things which never existed before. Just imagine thing which never existed before and ask AI to make tutorial on it. I even succeeded in creating omniscience argument thanks to AI, and I never heard of it before. Also, AI is literally used to translate ancient texts no one translated before, so to claim AI makes nothing new is about as coherent as saying that AI is nothing new. And you do realize AI girlfriends didnt exist before? AI therapists also didnt exist before. So to say AI makes nothing new when it literally enabled 24 hour daily free therapy for anyone with no effort, and countless free companions who also are always available quickly and dont even need rest... sure, thats nothing new according to you. So a thing which literally enabled countless new things is somehow nothing new. Alright.

The sentiment that "AI is too new for most people" reflects a genuine concern that, despite the hype around generative AI like ChatGPT, many people are not regularly using these tools and remain skeptical about their capabilities. Surveys show a mismatch between public awareness of AI's potential benefits and their willingness to adopt it, with significant populations expressing greater concern than excitement about its impact on daily life and human abilities. There's a desire for more control over how AI is used, a concern about its ethical implications, and unease regarding its impact on human creativity, critical thinking, and social skills. 

I just took a screenshot of your Egyptian hieroglyphics, uploaded it to ChatGPT, and asked if it could read it. ChatGPT read it and offered this as a translation. Tell me if this is correct.

“An offering which the king gives (and Anubis/Osiris grants): an offering of bread, beer, cattle, and fowl, all good and pure things on which a god lives, for the ka of [Name].”

The AI for translating texts isnt ChatGPT. I am not sure if even ChatGPT 5 can be used to translate those, if you used ChatGPT 5. They use an entirely different AI for translating ancient texts, and the one which works with far more resources than your regular ChatGPT. I am not sure if people here are aware, but AI has "levels of efficiency", and the more effective AI uses much more resources. My laptop can run local AI, but not at temperature which would make it as good and as fast as ChatGPT. And AI used to translate ancient texts works with even higher resources than ChatGPT. ChatGPT likewise doesnt produce images nearly as good as lets say Kling AI. Each AI has things it specializes in, and ChatGPT isnt best for ancient translations, videos or images.

AI needs to be trained a lot on egyptian symbols if it is to translate them, which I am not sure ChatGPT was, especially not the one you connect to by app or browser. GPT is a series of models, and what you get on browser or app is just what was adjusted for mass use.

Tho you can train ChatGPT in chat by uploading bunch of egyptian symbols and texts to make it establish consistency and patterns, but to do that would be too much work to bother with. I sometimes tell ChatGPT to save chat in its memory so it remembers what it said, but to do that with translations takes months.

I dont know how much general ChatGPT learns from interacting with me, but I have succeeded in teaching it the idea of hidden assumptions which it didnt seem to be aware of before. I dont know if its memory on my account is only connected to me or also connected to its general memory at all times, but I know one thing for sure. It learns. It learned the idea of hidden assumptions in arguments, and also how to avoid hidden assumptions by making deductive from definition arguments so the only hidden assumption which remains is law of identity. Completeness theorem proved that system which uses definitions and law of identity to prove something is always complete, where incompleteness theorem comes when system moves beyond definitions and law of identity. Tho law of identity itself is not provable to a true nihilist.

your post #22:

Nope, not even close. My rendering [post #9] is direct from "Spells for the Coming Forth by Day," [SCFD] aka "The Egyptian Book of the Dead," Plate II, line 8, [pg. 10] which translates as "Homage to thee, king of kings, lord of lords, princes of princes, possessor of the earth."

By the way, in your first line "...Anubis/Osiris grants" the verb "grant" should be conjugated as a 1st person, plural rendering according to the Chicago Manual of Style [English grammar]. Chat GPT [or you] rendered it as 1st person, singular. One of you needs English grammar ere-programming, and it is certain ChatGPT programmers need to take a year [at least] of formal college coursework in Egyptian hieroglyph grammar. My textbook is "Egyptian Grammar" by Sir Alan Gardiner, Oxford University Press, 3rd ed., 1969. Also needed: about 50 years self-taught from the same textbook so they can properly re-program Chattrerbox.

The Chatterbox rendering is familiar language in the SCFD, what with "...an offering of bread, beer, cattle, and fowl," but that phrasing occurs often, and the book is 240+ pages of solid hieroglyphs, and, so far, I have not yet found the total phrase as Chatterbox rendered. I'll keep looking.